Christos Stylianides,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, on behalf of Commissioner Arias Cañete, let me first thank honourable Members for their questions on the Commission’s action on nuclear installations in Belarus.

Allow me to update you on how we are working towards ensuring the facility will be operated only with the highest level of safety standards. Nuclear safety remains a key priority for the Commission as confirmed by the Energy Union Framework Strategy.

While fostering cooperation, transparency and trust, we are using all the instruments at our disposal to ensure the highest possible safety standards in the EU and internationally. This is absolutely non-negotiable.

On EU-Belarus nuclear safety cooperation: that is exactly the approach we have always taken with Belarus – nuclear safety and radiological protection have always been the key focus of our exchanges.

Since 2011, the European Union has been providing the Belarusian nuclear regulatory authority with technical assistance under the EU’s Instrument for Nuclear Safety cooperation by transferring EU best practices on the regulatory process, including formulation of licensing conditions and inspection practices, from site selection to commissioning and operation. Since April 2015, one EU expert has been based in Minsk, where we have been strengthening the regulator during the construction of the nuclear plant project from an early stage. The ultimate aim is to share EU expertise and build national capacity to ensure compliance with the best international practices and standards.

Through this technical assistance the competent regulatory authority of Belarus has improved its human and technical capacity. However, the Commission considers that the independence of the Belarusian regulator has to be further strengthened and a close monitoring of development is therefore needed.

On nuclear safety stress tests: as I said before, openness and transparency is essential when it comes to nuclear safety. By working together with our neighbours in an open way we can benefit from the exchange of information and expertise while building trust. In that spirit, the Commission welcomes Belarus’s extensive use of IAEA expert peer review services to help ensure safety.

Before I address where we are with the Ostrovets nuclear safety stress test, I would like to clarify two things which are essential in understanding the overall process.

Firstly, nuclear safety stress tests, both in the EU and in third countries, are carried out on a voluntary basis. Legally speaking, the European Union cannot oblige any Member State, nor third countries, which choose nuclear energy, to undertake such stress tests. Nevertheless, there is a political commitment to perform stress tests within the EU and an encouragement to extend them outside, as the March 2011 European Council called not only for comprehensive and transparent risk and safety assessments of all EU nuclear power plants, but also for carrying out similar stress tests in the neighbouring countries and worldwide. Since then, the Commission has been promoting the undertaking of stress tests in neighbouring countries. It is encouraging that Ukraine has already voluntarily participated in such an exercise and Armenia is currently in the process of doing so, supported financially by the European Union.

Secondly, a stress test is a national competence. It is performed by the operator and supervised by the national nuclear regulatory authority. It is only after the national stress test assessment is finalised and the outcome of the assessment is reported on, that the Commission can and in fact does organise peer reviews by EU national nuclear safety authorities.

In June 2011, based on a Commission initiative, several neighbouring countries, including Belarus, confirmed their willingness to undertake nuclear stress tests by signing the Declaration on conducting nuclear safety stress tests.

Since then, we have been urging Belarus to perform a nuclear safety stress test. The Commission expects, in the light of the Council conclusions in February 2016, that EU-Belarus cooperation will evolve positively also in this regard.

What are the next steps? The Commission was informed by Belarus that it has now put in place a legal instrument regulating the implementation of nuclear safety stress tests in line with European specifications. Belarus has also indicated that upon conclusion of the Ostrovets stress test process, the national assessment report will be presented to the Commission in the course of 2016 and 2017.

On our side, the necessary preparations for the peer review have already been done, and it is now in the work programme of the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group. Together with the Commission, this group of experts will organise the peer review as soon as we receive the national assessment report.

While this is already a positive development, the Commission would like to speed up the process’s implementation in Belarus and to receive the stress test report as soon as possible. Therefore, our services are planning a technical mission to Belarus in the coming months to discuss progress.

To conclude, let me assure you that the Commission remains fully committed to raising nuclear safety with the Belarusian authorities at all political levels. We will continue to promote the highest level of standards on nuclear safety in Belarus, together with all of our international partners.

Let me also assure you that we are in close contact with the neighbouring Member States, in particular Lithuania, to follow the developments with the Ostrovets nuclear power plant. I will ensure that the European Parliament is kept fully up to date with all the developments as and when they happen.

Andrejs Mamikins, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, the Belarusian nuclear power station was first envisaged backed in the 1980s. However, due to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 these plans were halted until less than a decade ago. Construction began in 2013 and should cost around USD 10 billion.

It must be pointed out that the reactor employed, a water-water energetic reactor, is the same as is currently planned for use in the Hanhikivi nuclear power plant in Finland. The fears of the international community, especially Lithuania, are understandable. Belarus has never had a nuclear power plant on its territory, thus raising fears of inability to operate it properly. Therefore, in order to alleviate these concerns, Belarus should allow for a series of necessary stress tests performed under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as a comprehensive environmental impact assessment, particularly on the matter of drinking-water sources shared with Lithuania.

With EU sanctions lifted, relations between the EU and Belarus are once again moving forward. I believe, therefore, that a solution to the current issues around the Ostrovets nuclear power plant will be found soon, since, in the field of nuclear energy, there can be no other way but multilateral cooperation between all parties involved, directly or indirectly, be that Belarus, Lithuania, the EU, the Russian Federation, whose specialists are building the plant, or any other international institution concerned.

I want to add that nuclear energy is also environmentally friendly, and with proper maintenance, nuclear plants can last for decades on end.

Jonathan Arnott (EFDD), blue-card question. – This, of course, is an issue which is broader than a European Union issue; it is an international issue. You have said quite a lot about what you want the Commission to do in this case. You have also mentioned the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). I am just wondering, as you did not give any concrete suggestions, what you would like the IAEA to do on this. Can you give me any suggestions for what it could do, more than it has done already?

Bill Etheridge, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, the IAEA monitors nuclear energy development throughout the world under the auspices of the UN. This is a clear case of the EU building up its part. If Belarus is developing an industry that concerns its neighbours, that is a matter they should refer to the IAEA and the UN.

Obviously, Belarus, and any other country that wishes to develop a nuclear industry, should be subject to existing international rules. I personally support more nuclear power in the UK, and expect all of our developments to be subject to IAEA rules as well – just like any other country. Sovereign states should be free to develop their countries as they wish so long as they operate within accepted international law. If international law is broken it is a matter for the UN.

The EU is hungry for influence and power. Trade and economic cooperation is the excuse for the existence of the EU, not the reason. Not content with intervening in the lives of its citizens, this organisation is desperate to intervene with the policies of its neighbours. Each of you, as nation states, should support the IAEA and refrain from the temptation to intervene and interfere with the business of sovereign independent states. Use existing international law and, if it is broken, use the UN. These are the conventions that, as sovereign nations, we should all respect and we should use.

There is no requirement for the EU to build up what it does, to act as a single entity, as a quasi-superpower, as a federal state. There is no need for this. We have laws; we have bodies to enforce them. If those laws are being broken on such an important issue as nuclear power, then let us use the United Nations; let us use the existing authorities and let us ensure that our people are properly protected in the correct manner without allowing political ambitions and political manoeuvrings to interfere in any way.

Benedek Jávor (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, we have heard a lot of important points and concerns regarding the Belarusian nuclear power plant (NPP) project, but I would like to turn your attention to the fact that, while we are worrying because of an NPP construction close to the EU’s borders, there is also something to be worried about within the borders of the EU.

In Hungary, my state, two new Russian—type blocks are going to be built in the next couple of years. This is just the same construction and the same technology as in Ostrovets, Belarus: the Russian—type VVER 1200 reactors. This Member State, Hungary, has already proved that it understands EU law in quite a ‘flexible’ way when it comes to nuclear projects. Regarding this nuclear project in Hungary, there was a veto from the Euratom Supply Agency because the contract with Russia was not in line with EU law. There is an ongoing infringement because of the lack of tendering, according to European public procurement law. There is an in-depth investigation because of non—tendering. There is an in-depth investigation because of possible forbidden state aid regarding the same project. That was a concluded pilot project because of the lack of transparency of the project. This Member State intentionally violated the EU regulation regarding nuclear waste with unlawfully shipped nuclear waste from a former serious incident in the existing NPP to Russia in 2014. Would you buy a used car from those guys? And do you think that it is a good idea to let it go when they plan to build a new Russian nuclear power plant in the heart of Europe?

Benedek Jávor (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – Thank you for your question. I completely agree that we need strong cooperation between the Member States. Regarding this project, ten EU Member States participated in the process under the Espoo Convention. Still, I believe that there is not enough attention from the Member States. Mainly Austria and Germany expressed deep interest and concerns regarding the project, but I would like to ask the Member States, including Croatia, to be more active regarding this project. In small countries like Hungary, nuclear investments are not single Member State issues.

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, I must say I am very sad that Mr Etheridge has left the debating chamber and shown absolutely no interest in this serious debate. He shows himself up to be extremely ignorant, suggesting that we should all rely only on UN international laws to keep us safe. Does he not know that the most powerful nation in the world, the USA, does not endorse the UN's International Court of Justice? So where would that leave us, Mr Etheridge? I thank goodness for the vigilance of the EU.

I am very glad that Parliament has decided to debate the safety of nuclear plants in Belarus. Belarus must certainly carry out all the environmental impact assessments and stress tests required by international agreements, and reassure all of its neighbours that the wider environment and citizens across the region and beyond are safe - and that includes me and Mr Etheridge.

There is, however, a broader point at hand. Nuclear power carries with it risks and potential costs that are hard to assess and estimate. The humanitarian and environmental catastrophe that would occur in the case of a serious accident is terrible to contemplate, and I have seen first-hand the devastated lives of the Fukushima survivors - bereaved, bereft, suffering mental health problems, and in the case of many children unable even to play outdoors for fear of contamination.

So since being elected I have worked together with Nuclear Transparency Watch, a network founded, after a call by this very European Parliament for greater nuclear security following the Fukushima disaster in 2011. I would like to emphasise that we must continuously strive for greater nuclear safety and transparency and support the civil society organisations who work in the field to advance that transparency.

The nuclear power industry is a big player in the energy industry, with huge subsidies from the public purse. It therefore has a duty to work closely with host communities and Nuclear Transparency Watch to ensure that the plants are operating to the highest standards.

Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Mr President, of course the situation in Belarus with regard to nuclear power is something which does need to be monitored at an international level and it is important – imperative even – to ensure that all safeguards are met. Just to clarify from earlier on in the debate that there is a broader point of principle which we were also making in this debate, which is to say that there are international organisations other than the European Union of which we are fully supportive. In this case, the IAEA and the United Nations play a very significant role just as, in a wider context across over policy issues, we could say that the G7, the G20, NATO, the IMF, the International Organization for Standardization, the World Trade Organization, the OECD, Interpol and so many others, are organisations that we want to be a part of – and yet in the UK the debate continues to focus on this one area of the European Union, as we are told we would be isolated if we were not in it. So there is a broader issue of principle here, as well as the specific situation in Belarus.

Christos Stylianides,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, let me first thank all Members for their interventions which show how high the stakes really are when it comes to energy safety and security. By way of wrap-up, I would like to pick up on a few of the wider issues raised during the debate, but first on the Ostrovets case.

Let me underline what I said at the start: the Commission will continue to use all the instruments at its disposal to ensure the highest possible safety standards in the EU and internationally. That is non-negotiable, as I already said. That is why our priority is now to ensure the timely implementation of Ostrovets nuclear safety stress tests in line with European specifications.

As always, the Commission will keep this House fully up to date with any developments as and when they happen. But let me be clear. Many of the solutions to the questions raised in this debate lie in the need to end energy isolation and complete Europe’s internal energy market. For Lithuania, as well as for all Baltic states, this means that we need to continue working towards their full integration into the European energy market.

The good news is that we are making progress. We recently saw the start of operations for the electricity interconnections of Lithuania with Poland and Sweden. Thanks to the LitPol Link and NordBalt, the level of interconnection of the Baltic States with the rest of the European grid has substantially increased, from 4% in early 2014 to approximately 22%.

On gas, work is under way on the game-changing Gas Interconnector Poland-Lithuania. GIPL, as it is called, is the first gas interconnector between the Eastern Baltic Sea region and Continental Europe. When complete in 2019 it will end the region’s gas isolation, further diversify gas sources, routes and counterparts, and ultimately help to reduce prices for consumers.

Much of this progress is thanks in large part to the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan, which brings together all the Baltic states to cooperate on integrating the region into a European network. This is an example to others on what we can achieve under the Energy Union. But we must build on this progress.

Our next challenge is to ensure the synchronisation of the Baltic States and other isolated regions with the rest of the EU market. Our vision is of an Energy Union based on solidarity and trust, which speaks with one voice to our external partners and which, ultimately, provides the secure and sustainable energy Europe’s citizens need. That is why the Energy Union is a top Commission priority and why our focus is fully on implementation. We look forward to working hand in hand with the European Parliament to make it a reality.